JR - Illegality Flashcards

1
Q

What 2 things did CCSU / GCHQ (1985) establish?

A

1) Decisions under the royal prerogative can be judicially reviewed.

2) Lord Diplock codified the common law grounds of judicial review.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

AG v Fulham Corporation (1921) relates to which sub-ground of judicial review (illegality)?

A

Simple ultra vires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Errors of law occur where…

A

The authority has not properly understood the legal powers conferred on it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Anisminic

A

House of Lords held there had been an error of law as the Financial Conduct Authority had misunderstood the statutory requirements of the scheme.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Why are courts less willing to interfere in errors of fact?

A

As courts do not wish to undermine the powers granted to the public authority by Parliament.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case on errors of fact

A

Khawaja

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Khawaja

A

Immigration Officer’s belief that C was an illegal immigrant was insufficient: there must be evidence to show that factual circumstances are in place.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

E v SSHD: 4 requirements for an error of fact?

A

1) Mistake of existing fact, including mistakes as to the availability of evidence on a matter.

2) Fact / evidence must be established so it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable.

3) Appellant must not be responsible for the mistake.

4) The mistake must have played a material (but not necessarily decisive part) in the tribunal’s reasoning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the 4 subdivisions of discretion?

A

1) Improper purpose
2) Relevant / irrelevant considerations
3) Fettering discretion
4) Wrongful delegation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

2 key cases on improper purpose

A

Padfield v Minister for Agriculture (1968)
Porter v Magill (2001)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Padfield v Minister for Agriculture

A

The purpose of a power was the creation of a complaints panel. Exercise of this power to instead remove all ability to hear complaints was exercising this power for an improper purpose.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Porter v Magill (2001)

A

Use of a public power to gain an electoral advantage was held to be improper purpose: was not the power’s purpose.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wheeler v Leicester City Council (1985)

A

Local Council banning rugby team from the local grounds due to their tour of South Africa during apartheid was an irrelevant consideration: was not part of their powers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ex parte Venables & Thompson (1997)

A

Home Secretary setting sentencing tariff based on public newspaper petition was an irrelevant consideration.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R (DSD and NBV) v Radford (2018)
WORBOYS CASE

A

Parole Board’s decision to grant Worboys parole despite not investigating a further 80+ alleged offences was irrational - it failed to take into account the RELEVANT consideration of his other alleged offences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Case demonstrating the potential overlaps between improper purpose and irrelevant considerations

A

R (Somerset City Council) v Fewings (1995)

17
Q

2 key cases on fettering discretion

A

Ex parte Kynoch
British Oxygen v Minister for Technology

18
Q

Fettering discretion occurs where…

A

A public bodies must NOT apply a policy or guideline so rigidly that this prevents proper consideration of the case’s merits.

19
Q

Lancashire Health Authority v ADG establishes…

A

Legal discretion must not be fettered by following policy guidance too rigidly.

20
Q

Ex parte Kynock

A

Court held public bodies must not ‘close ears’ to different applications: must not reject solely on the basis of a blanket application of policy.

Claims must be given some consideration.

21
Q

British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister for Technology

A

Authorities must not refuse to listen due to rigid policy: they must still consider cases on the margins of the policy.

22
Q

Statutory provision containing the public sector equality duty.

A

s.149 Equality Act 2010

23
Q

R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions establishes what about the public sector equality duty?

Judge?

A

Laws LJ: it is not a duty to achieve a particular result, but just to have ‘due regard’ to furthering equality / eradicating discrimination.

24
Q

Brackling v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A

Public authority must show evidence of engagement with the public sector equality duty when making a decision to satisfy the ‘due regard’ duty.